posted on March 19, 2003 01:10:50 PM new
I guess I am a sceptic, but how does one go about forcing a people who have never shown any signs of wanting democracy to embrace it?
Having known people from that part of the world the thing I remember several of them saying is - What you need in a leader is a STRONG man. Often demonstrating with a clutched fist. Somehow I think the subtle appreciation for give and take and peacefully relinquishing office after an election is going to be a hard lesson to master.
They may even make it required to vote by law. If that works there maybe they will adapt it here. It at least gives the appearance of a public mandate after. Will anyone understand that if they vote the "wrong" way they won't be rounded up after the election? That's pretty much their experience with voting. Thoughts people?
posted on March 19, 2003 01:24:21 PM new
I don't know.
I believe though, that in Afghanistan the people have done better, better than what was going on with the taliban. And their new leader (President?) is a good one, from what I've read about him.
Sure there are still the 'tribal lords' or whatever they are called around that country, but in the major cities I think its working..... a demorcracy of sorts, or whatever they (Afghanistanis) call it.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 19, 2003 02:34:23 PM new
As long as we can stop it, there will never be real democracy in Iraq, the uncertainty of who the electorate would choose is too much of a threat to U.S. interests.
Shi'a muslims are the majority in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, in the Sunni minority, has been imposing a secular (non-religious) regime. A democratic election participated in by a Shi'a majority could very well elect a Fundamentalist government with anti-west, pro-Arab leanings. "Protecting American interests" is the objective, "Spreading Democracy" is the propoganda.
"Will anyone understand that if they vote the "wrong" way they won't be rounded up after the election? That's pretty much their experience with voting."
Well, that's something they should worry about. Kissinger called Chile "a dagger aimed at the heart of Antarctica," and even after that acknowledgement that Chile was unimportant to us, the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected Chilean leader and installed one of the most brutal dictators in memory... There are real things of American interest in Iraq, too important to us to take the chance that democracy would get in the way.
posted on March 19, 2003 07:35:47 PM new
SALVADOR AYENDE, chile's so called president, was Castro's lackey, dont forget that the cuban embassy in chile was raided and was found to be storing all the weapons for the leftist. Pinochet only killed a few commies to save his country and propell it to the most properous and stable country in south america. if the commies would of had there way, history shows that MILLIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED for the worst.
let me remind you that after he eliminated the threat and the country was on the right track (about 9-12 years i think), he went to FREE elections and continued to be elected.
yes, he was a right wing dictactor but he loved his country and stepped aside when he finally lost the election.
posted on March 19, 2003 08:58:48 PM new
At the time, Chile was one of the few South American countries that had a stable democracy, for 20 years peaceful democratic elections had been been working fine, without the military coups that plagued other countries. Democracy meant nothing to Nixon and the U.S. when they organized the military coup that put Pinochet in power.
Allende was the democratically elected leader of Chile. The U.S. tried to enlist the leader of Chile's military in an effort to overthrow the Socialist Allende. The general, a right winger who didn't share Allende's political leanings, but who was also a strict Constitutionalist, refused to go along with the U.S.'s plan since the election was perfectly legal. So the general was assassinated by Chilean operatives hired by the U.S. Also murdered was an American journalist in Chile who perhaps had the unfortunate luck to have learned what was going on. Allende committed suicide.
Almost as soon as Pinochet was installed the love began to flow:
"Among other things, the former commander of the armed forces is charged with having -- jointly with others and in purported performance of official duties -- intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering on:
•Marta Lidia Ugarte Roman, by suspending her from a pole in a pit; pulling out her finger nails and toe nails, and burning her;
•Meduardo Paredes Barrientos, by systematically breaking his wrists, pelvis, ribs and skull; burning him with a blowtorch or flamethrower;
•Adriana Luz Pino Vidal, a pregnant woman, by applying electric shocks to her vagina, ears, hands, feet and mouth, and stubbing out cigarettes on her stomach;
•Antonio Llido Mengual, a priest born in Valencia, Spain, by applying electric current to his genitals and repeatedly beating his whole body;
Some forms of torture included the employment of a man with visible open syphilitic sores on his body, to rape female captives and to use on them a dog trained in sexual practices with human beings."
"history shows that MILLIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED for the worst."
How does history show what didn't happen? Your overcapitalized speculation claims that's what would have happened. What history shows is what did happened... The democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation was overthrown by the U.S., who installed, in his place, Pinochet, whom the U.S. continued to support, even though they knew what was going on.. and on.. and on... thousands tortured, murdered, and "disappeared."
Edited to try (probably unsucessfully) to fix the link and to add this...
When people like me, and plenty of others around the world, don't buy that this war is motivated by a desire to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, or to promote democracy, what we were were directly responsbile for in Chile is one of the reasons why. And having Henry Kissinger make the rounds of the tv news shows to tell us why we should go into Iraq, in between his rounds of cocktail parties, reminds us again.
posted on March 19, 2003 10:50:12 PM new
like i said, a few commies affected is better then the whole innocent population massacred and enslaved.
and yes history does show that where the soviet, chinese and cuban communist stuck their bloody red hands in, resulted in mass excecutions, massive exile communities, seperated families, hunger, enslavement, ect...
in any political struggle people always get affected. better a few bad than the whole good.
posted on March 19, 2003 11:23:39 PM new
That whole innocent population is the population that democratically elected the leader of their choice.
Pay lip service to democracy while you're overthrowing it... Set in motion years of nearly unspeakable tortures, support that for years and then pat yourself on the back saying - it was just a few commies. Make up an alternate scenario that never occurred, and claim you saved everyone from something that never happened.
posted on March 20, 2003 05:05:27 AM new
Desparecidos and torture do not a democracy make, keiichem. For you to defend one of the monsters of our time shows an ignorance that appalls me.
Democracy doesn't come at the barrel of a gun, or the electric prods and beatings of torturers, even if they are sponsered by the US.
Nobody knows where the assasins
buried these bodies,
but they'll rise from the earth
to redeem the fallen blood
in the resurrection of the people.
In the middle of the Plaza this crime was committed.
The thornscrub didn't hide the people's
pure blood, nor was it swallowed by the pampa's sand.
Nobody hid this crime.
This crime was committed in the middle of the Plaza.
Pablo Neruda
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on March 20, 2003 10:27:28 AM new
Well, let's see, there is Japan, Germany, Phillipines, South Korea, Italy, are these enough examples of democracy at the end of a gun ?
